Customer Reviews

Darwinism, Design and Public Education (Rhetoric & Public Affairs)

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Two comparable volumes have come out in the past year and a half that debate intelligent design theory: "Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (DDPE)" (edited by John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer) and "Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) and its Critics" (edited by intelligent design critic Robert T. Pennock). Both are over 600 pages, with over 2 dozen articles both from the pro-intelligent design (ID) and pro-evolution viewpoints. It is the differences between DDPE (edited by pro-ID authors) and IDC and it Critics (edited by a pro-evolution author) which make DDPE a unique volume of far greater value.
1) As noted, both volumes have articles from both the pro- and anti-ID viewpoints. That's fine--in fact that is good! Dialogue and debate can only serve to make progress towards better understanding both intelligent design and evolutionary theoryin this issue. However, progress is best served when the playing fields are level.
Numbers-wise, DDPE has a more balanced presentation with about 43% of the articles from the "con" (i.e. pro-evolution side); in IDC and its Critics, only about 33% are from the "con" (i.e. pro-ID) side. That difference is minor, for the real story is told in how the articles are placed.
In IDC and its Critics, the articles from the "con" (i.e. pro-ID) side seemed like mere foils which were almost always then be clobbered to death by 1 to 5 articles from the pro-evolution side. Counter-rebuttal from design advocates seemed rare, and design advocates were rarely given the last word on any issue. In DDPE, the articles from the con side seemed to be genuine rebuttals which were left to stand for themselves. In fact, the entire last section of the book is almost entirely devoted to letting critics have their say. That comes at the end, meaning the pro-evolution authors are allowed to speak without immediate academic clobbering, as was typically done to the pro-ID authors in IDC and its Critics. With pro-ID editors, DDPE does allows for real discussion on a level playing field.
2) The "con" (i.e. pro-evolution) side in DDPE was represented by few old or dated articles that were being re-used, but rather seemed to include much genuinely new material. In IDC and its Critics, it seemed almost all the "con" (i.e. pro-ID) articles were older works from ID proponents, aged anywhere from 5 to 13 years, often from early in the ID movement when many objections had yet to be made, or good answers from ID proponents to certain criticisms had not been given sufficient time for gestation. Though not every article is new, DDPE stands in contrast because it contains a significant amount of novel material from both sides that is worth reading.
[...]
I'll readily admit my bias lies on the side of ID, but I must say that in DDPE, I appreciated arch-ID critic Massimo Pigliucci's article discussing the treatment of the origins of life in textbooks-an article that was not included in the "critics" section, but rather appeared to be part of a cooperative discussion of textbooks from both sides.
[...]
[...]
In short, I think the 2 volumes are comparable size, but their differences are very telling: DDPE treats its critics with academic respect and tries to give them a voice, [...]. I noticed a stark contrast between the way the two editors seemed to treat their critics.
DDPE is a volume of the highest academic standard that, [...] serves to give much academic credibility to this debate.

Less than two decades ago, proponents of "intelligent design" (ID) set out to establish ID as a legitimate topic for scholarly debate and then as an alternative to a neo-Darwinian approach in biological research. They have made considerable progress on the first objective, less on the second. Meanwhile they have been drawn into noisy state and local controversies over the teaching of evolution in public schools. The ID movement, in its unfinished state, has thus come to the attention of journalists and politicians. It has become a thorn in the flesh of veteran defenders of evolution hardened by years of conflict with "scientific creationists." This compilation by Campbell and Meyer should help outsiders explore ID and sort out the ongoing confusion.
Having read a good many books and articles for and against ID as a basis for comparison, I have a positive impression of the Campbell/Meyer book. It is more readable than some others that contain an equivalent amount of semi-technical information. Its message: Questions about Darwinian theory raised by ID should be taught in science classrooms to stimulate critical thinking about science, education, and religion. At the outset, rhetorician John Angus Campbell sets the tone in "Why Are We Still Debating Darwinism? Why Not Teach the Controversy?" He and philosopher Stephen Meyer both contribute to Part I, on aspects of the public school questions. Part II critiques the way evolution has been taught. Part III lets proponents make their case for ID as a scientific alternative. Part IV gives critics of ID their turn, beginning with a clear analysis of ID's shortcomings by rhetorician Celeste Michelle Condit. Philosopher Michael Ruse and others weigh in, but ID pioneer Phillip Johnson gets the final word. The book is published in a Michigan State University Press series on "Rhetoric and Public Affairs," a series focusing on how public figures have gotten their ideas across in historic controversies.
This book is comparable in size and arrangement to Robert Pennock's "Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics." Some essays in both books sound familiar, written by "the usual suspects" plus a few new voices. The chapters in both are amply documented. With one prejudicial word in the title of each book ("Darwinism" and "Creationism," respectively) hinting at its attitude toward ID, the two books seem almost mirror images of each other.
I am not entirely impartial about the Campbell/Meyer book, since I am named in it as one of several persons who contributed to its editing. Before becoming an editor I was a practicing biochemist (hence a "methodological naturalist" or "metaphysical minimalist," though also a Christian believer). I could see that many questions in biology (whether genuine mysteries or merely unsolved problems) were papered over with words bearing no empirical meaning. Lacking confirmed mechanical details, "Evolution did it" seemed as empty scientifically as "God did it." Thinking about ID has helped clarify that similarity for me while awaiting those details. Meanwhile, words are what rhetoric is all about. I hope I have chosen mine with sufficient care.

It is refreshing that at least some healthy discussion has commenced regarding the literal plethora of misinformation on which most of the assumptions regarding Darwin's theory on the origin of the species are based. This book and others of its kind, though not exhaustive enough to tackle in only a single volume every aspect of the countless controversies surrounding Intelligent Design vs. Darwinism, nicely inspires interested parties to adhere to the principle of searching for truth, not simply accepting verbatim what mainstream academia has been promoting over the past century.

The fact is, most proponents of macro evolutionist theory, when thoroughly questioned, do not even know what it is, have never taken a biology course, nor could they explain the difference between natural selection itself (aka. adaptation, a phenomenon which can be empirically observed as occurring in nature) and the theory that entirely new species of living creatures make the quantum leap from a previous species to a complete other via the motor of natural selection (merely a theoretical model used to explain the broad variation of species, which is not able to be empirically proven through simple observation, only assumed through deduction).

One such lay proponent of neo-Darwinist theory has been busily flaming this very review board. His name is Tom Sullivan of York, Pennsylvania. Due to a sheer lack of understanding of what ID is and an absence of any semblance of objectivity, his reviews are absolutely useless to sincerely interested observers. Instead of simply objectively reporting on the content or value of books centering on the topic of Intelligent Design, he angrily resorts to hyperbole and slander, even basing one of his statements regarding "Christians" on a myth about the flat earth theory, which was maliciously created by proponents of Darwinism themselves, in an attack on organized religion at that time. This is the typical mindset in the world today, which, ironically, has always been the fearful reaction of anyone troubled by attacks on the status quo. This book, and others like it, are at least make a positive step toward dismantling such unhealthy attitudes and is a refreshing attempt at civility.

Even though such attempts may strike fear into the hearts of the likes of Patrick Sullivan, who has cut and pasted a nearly identical review onto this site concerning every single book in this series, the painful but necessary job of blowing over card houses is appreciated by some.

As mentioned above, what should be embarrassing to Mr. Sullivan (assuming he has any self respect) and to others like him is that they are not refuting Intelligent Design at all by slandering young-earth creationists or erroneously stating that Christians once believed the earth was flat.

Intelligent Design, in its principles, contains elements pertaining to the science of observation which are imperative to fields such as forensic science and archeology, to name only two. The proponents of Intelligent Design he and others like him attack cannot be lumped in with creationists in general, and doing so only demonstrates sheer ignorance, or bigoted dismissal, of the distinctions between these groups.

If our quest is to eventually obtain a presentation of truth that is as unbiased as possible, then, against the backdrop of advancements in technology which our information age brings with it, Darwin's theory must be revisited and critically analyzed on entirely new bases - if only to dispel misconceptions, poor assumptions, or worse - myths.

As far as the assertion is concerned that holding the earth to be flat was formerly required in order to ascribe to the Christian faith, here's an excerpt by Wells himself, refuting such claims:

"According to the standard story, Christians used to believe for biblical reasons that the Earth is flat. When modern science demonstrated that the Earth is actually a sphere, that belief became a legitimate target for ridicule. Now, since modern science has likewise demonstrated the truth of Darwin's theory (so the story goes), critics of Darwinism are just as silly as flat- Earthers.

But the story is totally false. It was pure fiction until it was turned into a phony historical claim by late-19th century Darwinists who used it to slander Christians.

The spherical shape of the Earth was known to the ancient Greeks, who even made some pretty good estimates of its circumference. Christian theologians likewise knew that the Earth was a sphere. The only two Christian writers who seem to have advocated a flat Earth were a 4th-century heretic, Lactantius, and an obscure 6th-century eccentric, Cosmas Indicopleustes.

The modern Flat Earth Myth originated with the 19th-century American writer Washington Irving. In his fictional History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828), Irving wrote that flat-Earth churchmen had opposed Columbus on the grounds that he would fall off the edge of the Earth if he tried to sail across the Atlantic. In actuality, Columbus's opponents knew not only that the Earth is a sphere, but also approximately how big it is. Since they (like Columbus) knew nothing about the Americas, it was quite reasonable for them to believe that a voyage to the Far East would not be a good investment.

The Flat Earth Myth remained clearly in the realm of fiction until Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859. Then two of Darwin's followers presented it as actual history in books that defended Darwinism against imaginary attacks from ignorant Christians: John Draper's The History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874), and Andrew Dickson White's A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). The pseudo-historical propaganda of Draper and White has been thoroughly discredited by twentieth-century historians.

Apparently, however, Graur doesn't read much history. Instead, he unknowingly caricatures critics of Darwinism on the basis of a myth that the Darwinists themselves fabricated.

Now THAT's funny!"

To be fair I need to let readers know that I work for Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture, the nation's leading think tank challenging neo-Darwinism, and where both the editors and several contributors to "Darwinism, Design and Public Education" are research Fellows and staff members. I strongly recommend that readers interested in this book and this subject visit the Center's website at discovery.org/csc/ (not discovery.com).

"Darwinism, Design and Public Education" (DDPE) is a peer-reviewed book that presents a multi-faceted scientific case for the theory of intelligent design and also examines the legal and pedagogical arguments for teaching students about the scientific controversies that surround the issue of biological origins.

One of the most important aspects of the book is that it expands on existing scientific arguments for intelligent design -from the presence of information in DNA and the presence of irreducibly complex molecular machines in the cell- while developing new scientific arguments for design based on developments in paleontology, such as the Cambrian explosion and comparative anatomy. This is a long-awaited scientific advancement for the scientific theory of intelligent design, the emerging challenger to neo-Darwinism.

The publisher, Michigan State University, in accordance with academic policies for its Rhetoric and Public Affairs Series, submitted the book to an expert panel of reviewers including a professor of biochemistry at an Ivy-league school and professors in the philosophy of science and rhetoric of human inquiry fields. This will go a long ways in silencing critics of intelligent-design who constantly, and falsely, claim that the theory is not supported by peer-reviewed literature. There is no doubt that this volume has been peer-reviewed.

DDPE presents a strong case for the theory of intelligent design as well as a critique, in order to advance critical thinking and greater public understanding of science. In doing so, the editors enlisted contributors that include intelligent design's leading proponents, as well as its critics, with each side offering in-depth arguments from science and legal and education policy.

Additionally, Darwinism, Design and Public Education shows the importance of fully and completely presenting evolution, including both the weaknesses and the strengths of the theory. Current textbooks and science curricula need to address the growing skepticism with Darwinian evolution, as well as better explaining the emerging scientific theory of intelligent design, which is exactly what Darwinism, Design and Public Education does.

According to co-editor Professor John Angus Campbell of the University of Memphis, "Darwinism, Design and Public Education makes a case for the educational value of teaching science in a way that prepares lay people to understand it and approach it critically. Students in the humanities are encouraged to doubt, question, and think critically about the theories presented to them, and so should students in the sciences." In that regard DDPE takes its own advice and models the critical and open approach that its main contributors advocate as a matter of science education policy.

DDPE presents the controversy over teaching Darwinism and design, and presents a roadmap for how the debate can be conducted at any academic level in a way that advances science education and teaches critical thinking.

Rob Crowther, Discovery Institute

There are two controversies surrounding neo-Darwinian evolution - one scientific about Darwin's theory itself and the merits of intelligent design theory, and a second over whether our education system should expose students to this controversy. "Darwinism, Design and Public Education" is a stellar volume that will prove to be of great influence and significance in the years ahead, as this debate continues and intensifies. This peer-reviewed book collects several excellent essays that were previously available in separate, difficult-to-find publications, as well as some entirely new scientific material. Leading proponents of design theory, from multiple disciplines, are represented, as are some of the leading critics of design theory.

For those who are unfamiliar with this entire terrain, the scientific theory of intelligent design simply holds that various aspects of the universe and living things are the product of an intelligent cause, rather than a purposeless, material one. This reviewer is an attorney with the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture the nation's leading think-tank challenging Darwinian evolution and promoting the study of intelligent design theory, and so there is no lack of opinion as to where I stand: the controversy should be taught. Yet, regardless of one's view or familiarity with the controversy in general, the book is a worthwhile read.

Particularly noteworthy for me is the article "Teaching the Origins Controversy: Science, Or Religion, Or Speech?" by Dr. Stephen Meyer and Professors David DeWolf and Mark DeForrest. This article is the seminal work on why it is legal to teach intelligent design in public schools, previously only available in the Utah Law Review. At this point, the debates in school boards and legislatures concerns only whether Darwin's theory should be taught in such a way as to allow students to understand its weaknesses, rather than just its strengths. Clearly students should be REQUIRED to learn the weaknesses of Darwin's theory. The thornier question is whether it would be PERMISSIBLE for teachers to teach students about intelligent design. As the authors of this article point out, the answer is most definitely YES.

Another excellent contribution is an article co-authored by Doctors Meyer and Michael Keas called "The Meanings of Evolution." Meyer and Keas note the constant use of fuzzy terms by hyper-Darwinists, who confuse the issue in the public's mind by employing different uses of the term "evolution" at different times without informing people that they are using the term to mean different things. Sound confusing? Fortunately, Meyer and Keas approach this problem in a straight-forward manner, delineating the SIX different scientific uses of the term "evolution."

Articles concerning the Cambrian Explosion, common biology textbook errors ("Icons") and the philosophy of education in a democratic republic are also collected here, and well worth the read.

I am particularly pleased that this volume includes, as an appendix, the transcript of hearings concerning censorship that took place before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Dr. Eugenie Scott, a fierce detractor of intelligent design goes head-to-head with Meyer before the Commission. As the reader will see, U.S. Commissioner (and Princeton's McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence) Dr. Robert George gives Scott a good grilling.

This is a fascinating book on a fascinating issue. I strongly recommend it.

Seth L. Cooper, J.D., Discovery Institute

I intend to make only several "quick" observations:
Since Denton's Nature's Destiny and Behe's work, and now this current book, for example, it would seem that any "objective" person would be impressed with the material presented. But that's the issue: objectivity.
How a "coldly" objective scientific type such as Sullivan would take personal and emotional umbrage at this issue- in a meaningless universe- strikes me as truly "funny". Afterall, then, why or how would it make any difference? Would it enhance his evolutionary fitness for survival? But that leads me to what I consider to be the most significant point. Let the "sullivans" of this world teach their children what they wish and allow us the freedom to inform our children of all the evidence- without sarcasm and name-calling. Better yet, eliminate the problem completely by ceasing to assume or posit the "state" educational system altogether! Afterall, is this really about whether Sullivan's world-view or mine will be- by the power of the State- imposed on my children? Why in heaven's name do we subject our children to such mental brutality? Are they the "football" in this "game"?

EDIT (6/13/04): My apologies for dual reviews; the first I submitted did not appear for a couple of days and I had not saved the text, so I wrote another.

- Should Darwinian Evolution be taught critically or dogmatically in public schools? Should students learn about the evidence against macroevolution as well as the evidence for it?

- Is it legal and indeed beneficial to teach Intelligent Design as a viable alternative? Is ID indeed scientific or only a relgious rehash of scientific creationism?

- Does life only have the "appearance" of design which can be accounted for by only natural causes? OR does Darwinian Evolution only have the "appearance" of explaining origins, while Intelligent Design is a logical and evidential inference?

These are only a few of the important and difficult questions that this volume attempts to address. Though the book is edited by ID authors, there are plenty of articles from various points of view - both regarding the theories themselves and the question of education.

Regardless of whether one believes in evolution or ID, a change in public education seems necessary. Most important, students have the right to know evidence for and against of theory - and indeed to know which parts of evolution are considered factual and which parts are theoretical (the authors clearly distinguish between the different meanings of evolution from "change over time", to "variation and adaption", "common decent" and even Dawnins' "Blind Watchmaker" philosophical position. Textbooks also need to be corrected to include evidence against the theory and to eliminate the metaphysical aspects (such as comments like "purposelessness" which attempts to teach that evolution necessary removes God and the possibiliy of the supernatural). Those implications need to be constrained to other courses, not science classes. Both evolution and ID have both scientific and philosophical aspects, but only the former are appropriate for science classes.

A previous reviewer has done a great job of summarizing the various parts of the book. At any rate, this book is a great resource for the "Teach the Controversy" issue and I highly recommend it.

The latest book on intelligent design titled Darwinism, Design, and Public Education is edited by Professors John Angus Campbell and Stephen Myer (2003 Michigan State University Press. East Lansing, MI.). This 634 page book is extremely well done, much better than that by Robert Pennock. First of all, it is more up to date, better written, usually avoids ad hominem attacks, and covers more biology. I found most all of the chapters were excellent, even those by persons who held the position that I disagree with. To be honest, this book has caused me to rethink the whole issue of intelligent design. Michael Ruse's chapter is fairly well done and has some very good points. On the other hand, Pigliucci has a chapter that is going to haunt him in the future! He argues that teaching only atheism in public school science classes will please him and many other leading scientists. He does not even want theistic evolution taught in the schools, only pure atheism will do, and he opposes all attempts to present theistic evolution in a favorable light! Extreme positions such as this will only play into the hands of creationists, making teaching science that more difficult.The important part is the large illustrated sections on biology that are must reading, to say the least. If you buy one book on intelligent design this should be it! It is not an introduction to the subject but should be easy to follow if you have some background in biology. Many of the chapters are very lively and entertaining. This book could also be used in a college class as a text (I am going to consider it in my evolution classes as a required reading source).

When doing research on the Darwinism / Intelligent Design debate, a plethora of books and articles could be proposed as suggested reading. First-tier publications written by Behe, Dembski, Johnson, and Meyer are certainly required reading. Yet, ID theory is growing in research and contributors, so a sizeable number of second-tier (though certainly no less qualified) authors could be mentioned in a variety of fields: Gonzalez/Richards' "Privileged Planet" was an eye-opener, Hugh Ross/Fuz Rana's "Origins of Life", Geoffrey Simmons' "What Darwin Didn't Know", and Lee Strobel's "Case for a Creator" (among others).

So what makes this book so important? Quite simply, the authors address the sensitive issue of science education in public schools. Though general articles are included that highlight the case for both Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design, the thrust of the volume is meant to address several important questions:

1) Should evolution in schools be taught critically or dogmatically? Much time is spent on defining the different meanings of the term "evolution" as well as distinguishing between evolution as science and evolution as philosophy. It is revealed that presently, evolution is taught without any mention of the evidence against it or the distinction between evolutionary science and philosophy. Many textbook errors are pointed out with the revelation that corrections were not made even in the presence of historical knowledge of these errors. Furthermore, evolution is sometimes taught with its full philosophical implications, including Naturalism / Atheism.

2) Should alternatives to Darwinian Evolution (such as Intelligent Design) be allowed to be taught in public schools? They address the important distinction between Scientific Creationism and Intelligent Design Theory - the former which was derived from a Biblical teaching of creation, whereas the latter was derived from empirical observations and scientific analysis of data. Though they agree that the possible religious implications of Intelligent Design should not be advocated in schools, they point out that ID is not in conflict with science. Many viewpoints are given by many contributors ranging from the ID theorists who propose the "Teach the Controversy" model and those who advocate an Evolution-only model for education in schools.

Teaching criticism of Darwinian Evolution and correcting textbook errors is very persuasive, in my view. For too long, evolution has been taught dogmatically without distinction of several different meanings: (Change over time, Limited common decent, Universal Common Decent, Evolutionary mechanisms, and the "Blind Watchmaker" hypothesis). Students are taught all aspects of evolution as fact, yet it is quite clear that many aspects of evolution have negative evidence that is never mentioned. Students should be presented with the full view and taught to think critically.

While Intelligent Design theory may indeed be compatible with Chrisianity, one must learn to seperate the science from the worldview implications. Darwinian Evolution has often been said to neccesarily lead to atheism (Dawkins), yet we understand that this is simply a philosophical view that not all evolutionists would agree with. Opponents of ID cannot dismiss the theory on religious grounds. Nor can the argument be made that ID should not be taught in schools because it is relgiously motivated.

The reviewer who posted on June 3, 2004 has given an excellent overview of the book. While the majority of the book is written from the ID viewpoint (after all, it is edited by ID authors), there is ample room given for responses from evolutionists - as well as varying viewpoints on the education issue. The entire book is heavily endnoted and contains a great amount of material for research and analysis. I've been interested in the creation/evolution controversy since I was in high school, and the history is fascinating.

One could easily begin research on the controversy with this book, or read a few books by ID theorists and Darwinian Evolutionists prior to it. Either way, I highly recommend it.

This is an important anthology to add to anyone's collection of resources on Intelligent Design and the theory of evolution. It features essays by both supporters and critics of ID, and contains some of the most thoroughly researched materials ever printed in book-form by the ID community. See, for example, the paper on the Cambrian explosion.

As more and more scientists become skeptial of the neo-Darwinian synthesis and even universal common ancestry, it's time to deal intelligently with the controversy surrounding Darwinism.